Victorians! discussion

For the discussion of Chapters 36-45 be aware if you have not finished these chapters spoilers may be posted here.

I find it interesting in the way in which it seems that like Dantes, Villefort now also appears to be a man who seems to have come back from the dead. At first I kept expecting that it was going to be discovered that Bertuccio accidentally killed the wrong person thinking it was Villefrot, but since such was never revealed I suppose he really did attack Villefort, but he just happened to survive that attack and was not killed as Bertuccio thought.

Also the child Benditto seems to contradict the idea initially put forth by Abbe Faria who presented the idea that all men are naturally good and shudder at the thought of doing violence against others, but it is society which corrupts them and causes man to act against his nature. This idea seemed to be supported by the character of Dantes who in his youth was good natured, so much to the point that he could not imagine that others would act any differently than he, and had no notion that his suffering was done to him by the evil acts of other people with intention of harming him. But after his realization of the truth, and with his growing age, he than became corrupt as hatred and the seed of vengeance was born within him and he lost his own former good nature.

But in the case of Villefort's child, Dumas seems to be contradicting this idea, for the child seems to have been born naturally evil as if he was in fact corrupted by his fathers blood.

Silver wrote: "I find it interesting in the way in which it seems that like Dantes, Villefort now also appears to be a man who seems to have come back from the dead. At first I kept expecting that it was going to..."

Yes, the part about Benditto (Benito?) shocked me too. In a way, the whole book revolves around the question of evil and how a person becomes evil. In the previous section, the Count's gift of the diamond to Caderousse initiates his practice, which continues throughout the book, of testing various characters by subjecting them to temptation. But with Benito (?) it's unnecessary to introduce temptation - he's just naturally evil, period. And there's no explanation for it, unless Dumas is subscribing to the theory that illegitimate children are somehow infected with evil from birth. Or maybe he's saying that the crimes associated with his birth - the attempted burial (which would have been homicide, since, unknown to Villefort, the infant was alive) of Benito himself, followed by the attempted murder of Villefort, have marked Benito with evil?

Perhaps Benito was meant to be a sort of metaphor for the product of vengeance. Everything surrounding the child's birth/upbringing is steeped in evil, or the clandestine, and violence. He is a child produced out of vengeance, raised by the same hand that attempted, and thought he had slain his father, of whom had, though perhaps unknowingly, attempted to kill the infant, and than of course the child was stolen away from its mother to be discarded before reclaimed by Benito's sister in law.

It is perhaps symbolic of the way in which such actions can only have one outcome, and one that will lead to only more violence and misery. Throughout this story we do see these little side allegory's about vengeance which are leading up to the ultimate revenge of Dantes.

Silver wrote: "Perhaps Benito was meant to be a sort of metaphor for the product of vengeance. Everything surrounding the child's birth/upbringing is steeped in evil, or the clandestine, and violence."
I like this idea a lot, it makes so much sense, I'm not sure why I didn't think of it when I first read these chapters!

After some feeling that the story was being padded in the previous comment section, I have to say that I'm riveted again as we reach (almost) the half way point. The story may twist and turn as the narrative line fluctuates, but that makes sense in the piecing together of the story. Dumas is obviously quite open to the use of coincidence in the book, but then so are a lot of Victorian writers and it hasn't really bothered me in a good book.
The Count/Dantes seems to have become a fount of all knowledge - a chemist, linguist, master of disguise. But within the world of this book I think it works.
The theme of revenge and the undercurrents created by the various narrative lines I agree make a thematic basis to the novel's movement. Those early readers eagerly scanning the newspaper for the next episode will have been constantly reminded of the book's central theme, I feel.

Stephen wrote: "After some feeling that the story was being padded in the previous comment section, I have to say that I'm riveted again as we reach (almost) the half way point. The story may twist and turn as the..."

I have to say in this book, I am left to question at times how much is in fact true coincidence, and how much is in fact the Count's own hand manipulating the circumstances of the situation. He does seem to have his hand in everything and is presented in this omnipresent and omniscient entity. And with all his different disguises he seems to be everywhere at once and know everything. He does stand as a god like figure directing the lives of everyone else, manipulating them like pieces on a chess board to set it up just the way he wants it.

Edmond believes he is God's iron scepter to punish the evildoers that unjustly did Edmond wrong. Edmond fully embraces that role and takes extreme measures in both time and money to achieve his desire for revenge.

While I feel for Edmond and all the hardship he endured for 14 years in prison, I don't think he is justified in becoming God's avenger.

Kyle wrote: "Edmond believes he is God's iron scepter to punish the evildoers that unjustly did Edmond wrong. Edmond fully embraces that role and takes extreme measures in both time and money to achieve his de..."

And I think that's exactly the question that Dumas is posing us as readers. He is portraying himself as (half way through the book, I keep reminding myself!) a sort of avenging angel. It's all self-justification, I think. On the other hand, the bad have prospered while the good have gone to the wall - and he seems himself as redressing the balance. It could be an uncomfortable question for the reader to ask - can he/she wholeheartedly condemn Dantes?

Stephen wrote: "On the other hand, the bad have prospered while the good have gone to the wall - and he seems himself as redressing the balance. It could be an uncomfortable question for the reader to ask - can he/she wholeheartedly condemn Dantes? "

I have to admit I have the opposite problem. I find it difficult not to wholeheartedly condone Dantes for what he is doing. While I understand that Dumas himself is not in fact supporting the right for the kind of vengeance which Dantes is seeking, and we can see how the former good hearted Dantes has essentially "died" to have this avenging angel force reborn in his place, and the way in which the Count is portrayed as seeming to be something that is more than human, as something of this supernatural force, we can see the why in which Dantes has been corrupted.

But I really don't feel the least bit sorry for Danglers, Villefort and Fernand. I find myself looking forward with anticipation to what will become of them, and I think whatever Dantes does it will be well deserved.

Silver wrote: "Stephen wrote: "On the other hand, the bad have prospered while the good have gone to the wall - and he seems himself as redressing the balance. It could be an uncomfortable question for the reader..."

I wouldn't disagree with a word of that, in fact. These are people who have done deliberate harm to another to benefit themselves. They deserve punishment, and much of this section of the book when the narrative is not cracking on forwards is a meditation on punishment and retribution, isn't it?

Stephen wrote: They deserve punishment, and much of this section of the book when the narrative is not cracking on forwards is a meditation on punishment and retribution, isn't it?.."

It is hard to see just what Dumas himself is trying to convey on all this and what his message and belief is. On the one hand, the imagery surrounding Dantes/The Count is not very flattering, and there is certainly something sinister about his appearance, and all the vampire allusions, and the way people do find something frightful in the way he looks.

Yet on the other hand, we also are given these ideas of The Count be elected to punish the "deserving" and that his vengeance is like the hand of God setting the wrongs to right again, and Dantes is certainly not wholly a force of evil. In addition to being an avenger he also is a protector of the truly good and honest. He does see that everyone gets truly what they disserve and Caderousse he attempts to give a second chance to improve himself, considering the cowardly but less guilty role he played in Dantes fate.

So it does not seem as if Dumas himself wholly condemns Dantes, and that he does believe that Danglers and Villefort and the like are deserving of punishment, but in the same way he also portrays the idea in which it seems Dantes acts of vengeance may also be the means of his own destruction. That to see justice done he must make a self-sacrifice. I think we can see the possibility of his own fate being in the end tragic, even if he does succeed in his quest for vengeance.

I think that this debate that we seem to be having is exactly what Dumas wants to happen. After all, we are at mid-point in the novel and I genuinely don't know what is going to happen - does Dantes succumb to corrupting violence and lose any sympathy I have for him? I don't have a fixed view, yet. And I agree with you, Silver, that if Dantes is corrupted we would be able to see that as the product of the wicked acts of others, and the inhuman treatment he received for, it seems, no crime apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Truly a tragic possibility.

Sorry -- I’m a bit behind.
It seemed that the first part of the Count’s plan was to restore those who are honest and good (which ended with giving M. Morel grace). The second part focus is on the Count’s revenge, which we see in these chapters -- but all is not so dark.

The Count watches the brutal public execution but it does not satisfy him. In his discussion with Albert and Franz, he talks about how the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, even one of death. The Count feels that those who have been wicked deserve to undergo something as equally as painful as what they inflicted on another.

Dumas points out how naïve is Albert. First by believing that he will be the recipient of many love affairs with Roman women; then being induced by Luigi Vampa’s girl at Carnival; and completely unaware of the danger he could have been in as he awakens when rescued by the Count – which was his plan in getting Albert to introduce the him into Parisian society.

I thought it interesting that Morrel’s son, Maximilian, was present at the Breakfast. His discussion with the Count it seems to have pleased him.

I like how Dumas used a portrait of a peasant woman looking mournfully at the sea to tell us about Albert’s parents: Mercedes who never stopped loving Dantes; and Fernand, who hates the painting because, deep down, he knows Mercedes never loved him like she loved Dantes. Now Mercedes knows Dantes is alive.

Regarding the baby, Benedetto – the meaning is “blessed.”